# Should Cities Ban Smoking in Public Places?



## KevinG (Apr 10, 2005)

This is a pretty cool blog post on the NY Times site:



> Edward L. Glaeser is an economist at Harvard.
> 
> One of my jobs is to be a booster for research on state and local government. In that capacity, I'm always a little sad that most people are captivated by the drama of presidential elections and bored by the nuts and bolts of local politics. Much of what is most important in our lives - the quality of our schools, the safety of our streets and the speed of our commutes - is determined at the local level.
> 
> ...


Full Post


----------



## Scott W. (Jul 10, 2008)

I think tobacco and marijuana should be legal and permitted for use by any responsible adult that wishes to use it so long as it is not causing harm to anyone else.


----------



## KevinG (Apr 10, 2005)

I'm going to start a new site called WeedReview.com. :w

Just kidding.


----------



## Scott W. (Jul 10, 2008)

KevinG said:


> I'm going to start a new site called WeedReview.com. :w
> 
> Just kidding.


www.ClubWeedie.com home of the Stonedland Gorillas!!!


----------



## JCK (Nov 9, 2006)

I believe the Business Owner should determine whether smoking is permitted in their establishment based on what's best for their business.

As far as common public areas? I'm okay with banning indoor smoking, but don't tell me I can' smoke in a public outdoor park.

Long gone are the days when I was 16 hanging out in the shopping malls and smoking.


----------



## mrreindeer (Sep 4, 2008)

KevinG said:


> I'm going to start a new site called WeedReview.com. :w


How about puff.com.....oops, my bad



scottw said:


> www.ClubWeedie.com home of the Stonedland Gorillas!!!


Scott, you keep throwin' out these domain names at will....and hey, if someone claims that as their own, I support you 100% as the originator just as I did with 2girls1puff! 



khubli said:


> I believe the Business Owner should determine whether smoking is permitted in their establishment based on what's best for their business.
> 
> As far as common public areas? I'm okay with banning indoor smoking, but don't tell me I can' smoke in a public outdoor park.
> 
> Long gone are the days when I was 16 hanging out in the shopping malls and smoking.


On Sunday, I approached the (outside) cab line in Vegas to get to the airport and a gal looked at me puffing a cigar in disgust, coughed and told me that I was killing her and myself. Real nice. Kinda reminded me of my mother.


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2008)

Not at all, it's rather absurd. What all these "leaders" in charge don't realize is they're looking at a world of trouble trying to infringe on people's personal freedoms. The prohibition showed already what damage can occur due to banning. Not only did the criminals become wealthy and powerful, but the governments also lost money they normally would've earned on taxes! Not just on the alcohol itself but in the establishments that brought in sales tax by selling it.

I swear to God, if there is ever a sweeping ban on it I will take up the cause of gathering people to fight against it. And if that doesn't work I'm moving to Europe. There is a great article in the Winter 2008 edition of Cigar Magazine that talks about the increasing taxes on Tabacco, it's on the last page.

Let me shut up now cause discussing this issue makes me so damn angry. Freaking Nazi's out there trying to control every little aspect of our lives. :c


Rev.


----------



## Cigar Man Andy (Aug 13, 2008)

In the great Commonwealth of Virginia they imposed a 10% OTP (Other Tobacco Products) tax on cigars. The money is going to DOT to pay for the metro improvement and expansion. If they make tobacco consumption illegal, where do you think they will get the money from and who will they tax then? It seems to me that we help more than they realize. 

:hnem


----------



## Rev2010 (Sep 3, 2008)

Being I forgot to the a bit more specific I'd like to add I do support smoking bans on public transportation and *inside* public places that have nothing to do with smoking - such as stores and malls. However, in open air public places I think it's absurd to ban smoking. Also, for cigar bars I think it's criminal to ban smoking. Personally, I thought it was criminal to ban smoking in bars & clubs. I feel the owner that spent all that money starting up his business should make the decision to allow or not. People don't have to frequent there and people don't have to work there. Bars have always been a place for nothing more than social drinking and smoking. And honestly, I hated bars and clubs being smokey! I'm glad they're not anymore but I don't support that it's this way cause of a ban that the owner had no say in. I don't mind the ban at restaurants as the sole purpose is to eat food, not sit in someone else's smoke while trying to eat.


Rev.


----------



## epyon26 (Dec 16, 2007)

hey I pay taxes and I fell like smoking a stogies on the street, in the park, or at a high school football game then I should be able to do so. I understand not smoking when I'm inside public buildings but in a business, that's run in to property rights and it should be up to the owner. :sb


----------



## Rubix^3 (Nov 10, 2008)

I agree with the Rev. The business proprietor should ultimately decide if smoking is permitted in their establishment. I just visited family in Columbus Ohio and discovered a smoking ordinance has also closed a cigar bar that was once there. Nannyism.


----------



## Cigary (Oct 19, 2007)

mrreindeer said:


> How about puff.com.....oops, my bad
> 
> Scott, you keep throwin' out these domain names at will....and hey, if someone claims that as their own, I support you 100% as the originator just as I did with 2girls1puff!
> 
> On Sunday, I approached the (outside) cab line in Vegas to get to the airport and a gal looked at me puffing a cigar in disgust, coughed and told me that I was killing her and myself. Real nice. Kinda reminded me of my mother.


David, you missed an opportunity to tell this gal in the cab line that it couldnt come soon enough for her. I usually will have these twits ( I purposefully mis-spelled this word ) tell me the same thing whilst they are smoking a cigarette or wearing a bottle of perfume and twirling their hair and smacking their gum and rolling their eyes in their skulls like keeno lottery balls.:chk


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

mrreindeer said:


> On Sunday, I approached the (outside) cab line in Vegas to get to the airport and a gal looked at me puffing a cigar in disgust, coughed and told me that I was killing her and myself. Real nice. Kinda reminded me of my mother.


you should carry a card that has weblinks to the research that shows second hand smoke does absolutely nothing to bystanders. (there's a link in the pipe forum about this someplace if you search)
maybe dig up the stories about how C. Everett Coop and the EPA lied to Congress in the 80s about the effects of second hand smoke. (wish i could find those links again).

it's funny to hear it from a mother pushing a baby stroller, yet she smells like a $2 french whore - which probably has more of an effect on her kids lungs than your second hand smoke from 40+ feet away.

there's also a study that was done by the heart and lung assoc, it showed that pipe smokers live 2 yrs longer than non-smokers. (from the book "pipe dreams")


----------



## donp (Mar 5, 2006)

Answer: Hell No! What oughta be banned are those who annoy other people trying to relax while smoking a fine cigar. Or those who drive poorly as if they are the only people on the roads, or those who would mind your business while you are smoking a cigar, and trying to mind your business. 

Hell, pidgeons create more mess and disease than the gentle aroma of a fine cigar.


----------



## PipesandGOP (Feb 7, 2008)

I'll never forget taking my required government class in high school and reading the chapter dealing with what is considered "public" and "private". I was shocked when I noticed it actually correctly explained the two concepts- public = a government entity; private = owned by an individual... apparently this book was written by someone who had actually taken more time to read the constitution than the Communist Manifesto.

Enter today when the government, under a decision upheld by the supreme court, will seize property in order to allow any business they deem more fit to be there than those sheeple living there. Why you ask? According to the Supreme Court, the business will contribute more to the "common good".

So why be surprised when someone totally ignores what some of us apparently flat out stupid citizens believed to be- that right to own private property, and comes weilding the police power of government to do with our property what they wish. And why be surprised when the government, and the sheeple after being constantly barraged by the media with their anti-smoking liberal agenda begin considering anywhere other than a house to be a public place.

Why does all of this happen? Because some stupid mother wants to be able to take her kid into the bar while she's in there whoring around or some whiner doesn't like the smell of smoke to the point where they don't mind bitching until the guy that owns the business is forced to change. If people don't like it, they don't have to go somewhere that allows smoking. Businesses aren't charity cases.

It's time to realize that as smokers we have no rights, we're the substandard citizens, the scum of the earth to these people, and it's time to really start taking political action.. start electing people who are pro-property rights and pro-tobacco.
And please... the next time someone complains about your smoke tell them to go somewhere else if they don't like it. [/End Rant]


----------



## fsjonsey (May 23, 2008)

Ask me about having my rights taken away by Obese American Cancer Society Lobbyists. 
I live in Ohio. :hn


----------



## PipesandGOP (Feb 7, 2008)

IHT said:


> you should carry a card that has weblinks to the research that shows second hand smoke does absolutely nothing to bystanders. (there's a link in the pipe forum about this someplace if you search)
> maybe dig up the stories about how C. Everett Coop and the EPA lied to Congress in the 80s about the effects of second hand smoke. (wish i could find those links again).
> 
> it's funny to hear it from a mother pushing a baby stroller, yet she smells like a $2 french whore - which probably has more of an effect on her kids lungs than your second hand smoke from 40+ feet away.
> ...


Also I just thought about it, in the Fall issue of P&T in the letters to the magazine section, someone brought up if not that same thing about the lying, something pretty damn close. Magazine's in the car and I'm too lazy to go get it but the gist of it was just a quote right from the guy doing the study basically saying "we fudged on some of the numbers and the way the tests were conducted to meet our desired result".


----------



## gary106334 (Sep 28, 2006)

fsjonsey said:


> Ask me about having my rights taken away by Obese American Cancer Society Lobbyists.
> I live in Ohio. :hn


Yeah, I know I visit there every year (born and raised there) and I loved going to the bar in the little town I grew up in. Having a beer and cigar with old, old (literally), old friends. Can't do it anymore. Damn.


----------



## Legend (Sep 15, 2008)

At a business it should be the owners right to either allow or designate areas for smoking. Free market will decide if people don't want that. 

As far as outdoor public places go. I see no harm in designating areas non-smoking. So if there are those who don't wish to be around it they can have their area. Indoor public areas I completely understand making them non-smoking. However what is called public area today is typically businesses and that's a wrong definition. This would include government areas. Etc. Places people have to go from time to time and don't choose to go. 

Marijuana is just foolish to legalize. Mostly because it is a gateway drug. Most don't stop there. Also it is mind altering. While some incorrectly make the argument that alcohol is mind altering too that is not the case. It is a mild depressant but must be severely abused before any altering can take place. This is not true of marijuana. Just using it alters one. 

But typical of our country as of late. Get it all backwards.


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

The wheels aren't coming off this country they are gone and we are riding on the axle and yet these bastards keep pounding away on tobacco..

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## ActionAndy (Jul 9, 2008)

South Park had a really good episode about the Anti-Smoking Lobbyists and Rob Reiner, you should check it out if you can. Interestingly enough it was on last night. Baader-Meinhoff?


----------



## epyon26 (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey if these aholes whant to make pot legal then pass some schip bill on it to pay for health care for kids. Also geting back to my early point the non-smoker should shut the hell up because I pay more taxes then they do and I should in any outdoor place I want.


----------



## PerpetualNoob (Sep 9, 2008)

This is a fairly long, depressing story. Sorry.

About 15 years ago, some guy here opened a restaurant in midtown, and decided to make it non-smoking. Everywhere he went, people bitched about smokers in the restaurants, so he saw the huge marketing opportunity and he jumped on it with both feet. People stayed away in droves, he went bankrupt in a few years. The place was empty for a couple more years, got bought, opened up again as a non-smoking establishment. No one went there, again, he went bankrupt, too. Same exact thing happened a _THIRD _time. Meanwhile, the socialist city Assembly decided for us that all restaurants should be non-smoking, only there were a handful of places that had bars in them, and they got grandfathered in. Guess where people actually went? All the people that ran the non-smoking places screamed bloody murder, _"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!"_ Their businesses took major hits, because everyone started going to the smoking places. Once again, the socialist city Ass-embly stepped in and agreed, yes, it really was unfair, so the obvious solution was to make ALL businesses totally non-smoking. Yes, even TOBACCO STORES.

The only conclusion I can come to is, in spite of all the bitching, "the people" don't really want non-smoking restaurants, or it wouldn't need to be a law. If they did, the owners would not be able to ignore the clamor, and the smoking places would have no choice but to also go non-smoking, or lose their customer base to the ones that already are. Smoking bans are nothing more than a way for a vocal minority to impose their will on the majority. Period. It took them 15 years to do it, but they did, and there it is. That's how your rights get taken away. One at a time. If you don't like it, you're an ignorant *******, and you don't care about _THE CHILDREN._

As of 1/1/08, you can no longer smoke in Shiphol Airport. That's in Amsterdam, for godsakes. You can shoot heroin in Amsterdam, and that's OK, or you can buy and smoke pot in a cafe, and that's OK, but you can't have a cigarette in the damned airport? Out of several hundred acres, there were a few hundred square feet to smoke in, but that wasn't enough for the antis, they had to have it all. Apparently, tolerance is a good thing, as long as I don't have to tolerate anything I don't like.

Then, I was standing outside a Scottish pub having a smoke in the wind and driving rain, and several smokers told me, with a straight face, how much they support the new smoking ban. When I hear this, it makes me so sad, and so angry, I can't even come up with a coherent response.

They cut my arm off, but it was only one arm, and only from the elbow down, so I guess it's OK. They must have known what they were doing, and they said it was for my own good. I didn't even know there was anything wrong with it, until they told me.


----------



## Scott W. (Jul 10, 2008)

Legend said:


> At a business it should be the owners right to either allow or designate areas for smoking. Free market will decide if people don't want that.
> 
> As far as outdoor public places go. I see no harm in designating areas non-smoking. So if there are those who don't wish to be around it they can have their area. Indoor public areas I completely understand making them non-smoking. However what is called public area today is typically businesses and that's a wrong definition. This would include government areas. Etc. Places people have to go from time to time and don't choose to go.
> 
> ...


With a tremendous amount of respect for you and your opinions (I always enjoy your input), I have to disagree. If you ever came home from a bar with a one eyed wildebeast with "born to lose" tattooed on her forehead and thought she was the catch of the day, you would realize that alcohol is far more mind altering that the weed IMHO.


----------



## Shaz (Oct 10, 2008)

In Canada, many of the Provinces have legislated smoking bans in public places. The restaurants and bar business has suffered as a result. (more the bar business). Some of the bars in smaller towns had to close down altogether. It's believed that many people would have private parties instead. We had a couple of great cigar bars. I miss that. I do enjoy a (cigarette) smoke free bar though. 
My wife smokes cigs, but I don't. Now when we go to a restaurant, she always wants to sit out on the patio, so she can smoke. I don't mind most of the time. But if I go to an elegant restaurant, I don't really want to be sitting on the patio. Part of the experience is the ambiance of the place. And up here, it's winter 7 months out of the year. So, alas, we don't go out as often as we used to.
Not sure what the answer is, but it would be nice if we could somehow accomodate both sides.


----------



## ActionAndy (Jul 9, 2008)

Is it crass to admit that I sincerely _don't _care about the children?


----------



## ongreystreet (Nov 3, 2008)

They always want to tax the so called recreational things, alcohol, smoke, gambling. Smoking is going out the door and gambling in.

I keep telling all these people that are so happy that bars are smoke free, that the alcohol taxes are next. When they are done taxing tobacco and alcohol to death, years later they are going to tell everyone how dangerous their Starbucks and energy drinks are and how the gov't will tax that too.


----------



## gary106334 (Sep 28, 2006)

PerpetualNoob said:


> You can shoot heroin in Amsterdam, and that's OK, or you can buy and smoke pot in a cafe, and that's OK, but you can't have a cigarette in the damned airport?


What I don't understand about this is: If second hand smoke (I know there is no conclusive proof on second hand smoke) is bad from cigarettes, pipes, and cigars then why is it not bad from pot?


----------



## Legend (Sep 15, 2008)

scottw said:


> With a tremendous amount of respect for you and your opinions (I always enjoy your input), I have to disagree. If you ever came home from a bar with a one eyed wildebeast with "born to lose" tattooed on her forehead and thought she was the catch of the day, you would realize that alcohol is far more mind altering that the weed IMHO.


No offense Scott. As I stated it takes abuse to be mind altering with alcohol.


----------



## PerpetualNoob (Sep 9, 2008)

fsjonsey said:


> Ask me about having my rights taken away by Obese American Cancer Society Lobbyists.
> I live in Ohio. :hn


I don't even fully understand her reasoning for it, but my Mom is an anti-tobacco-ist, almost to the point of being a psychosis. She did volunteer work for the ACS for years, until she found out how they badly they squander their donation dollars. I don't really know the details of it, but now she hates them, almost as much as she does tobacco. She was drinking the ACS Kool-Aid from a beer bong, so if she says they're full of crap, that's good enough for me, at least until some contrary evidence is presented.


----------



## Legend (Sep 15, 2008)

Legend said:


> No offense Scott. As I stated it takes abuse to be mind altering with alcohol.


I just reread what I posted and for clarity the first line should read "no offense taken, Scott"


----------



## Theophilus (Jul 7, 2008)

Face it guys, our country is already socialist and we're heading towards either fascism or communism. Read the Communist Manifesto. It's really short for those who don't like to read. We're already taking the steps. Keep watch for what happens with the bail-out plans too. These plans will lead us to a place that we do not want to go. I'm usually an optimistic type of person. go figure:hn


----------



## Scott W. (Jul 10, 2008)

Legend said:


> I just reread what I posted and for clarity the first line should read "no offense taken, Scott"


None taken my brother, You are a great BOTL and I appreciate your thoughts and opinions and look forward to them!!:tu:tu:tu


----------



## gary106334 (Sep 28, 2006)

Damn Kevin, see what you started. :chk:chk:chk:r


----------



## sspolv (Dec 26, 2005)

ActionAndy said:


> Is it crass to admit that I sincerely _don't _care about the children?


Honestly, I don't think it is. The children are FINE. The way that anti-smoking groups make cigar/cigarette/tobacco smoke in a second-hand fashion seem is preposterous. Its as if it could eat holes in two inch case-hardened steel and render a manly, red meat eating, whiskey swilling lumberjack into a crying heap of useless carbon is utterly amazing. Children, up until this point, have survived pretty damn well with tobacco smoke. Society has been around tobacco smoke since the early 1400s. "Big tobacco" was really introduced in the late 1800s. The chemical additives in cigarettes were introduced mainly in the 50s. I have a question for the general population here. How do you feel? Do you feel sick? Hard to breathe? Stunted growth? I'd guess not. Tobacco smoke didn't just become hazardous in the some-odd years since the release of that report. It couldn't just up and turn into a toxic, noxious fumigant in the past, oh, decade and a half. If it is harmful to children and adults alike, we would have noticed the detrimental effects a looooong time ago.

Many here may have grown up in an era in which smoking was common, in the workplace, in the home, in public places. You're no worse for the wear, are you? So what's different? What's in cigarettes that wasn't in them 50 years ago? What's in tobacco that's -never- been in it? Nothing.

Honestly, when it comes to tobacco, I don't worry about the children. They'll be fine. It'll buff right out. Most other things, well, that's a different story...


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

*Should Cities Ban Smoking in Public Places? *

You're asking the wrong crowd _that_ question!


----------



## KingSlender (Nov 17, 2008)

See, I'll play Devil's Advocate. I actually prefer going into non-smoking restaurants because sometimes you just want to go out, have a nice meal or drink and not come home smelling like an ashtray. I'm not sure how to wrap my head around what would be reasonable legislation, but it might be something to the effect of "If you serve food, it's a non-smoking establishment." Cigar bars or bars that server nothing but alcohol, would be exempt.


----------



## Habanolover (Feb 22, 2006)

KingSlender said:


> See, I'll play Devil's Advocate. I actually prefer going into non-smoking restaurants because sometimes you just want to go out, have a nice meal or drink and not come home smelling like an ashtray. I'm not sure how to wrap my head around what would be reasonable legislation, but it might be something to the effect of "If you serve food, it's a non-smoking establishment." Cigar bars or bars that server nothing but alcohol, would be exempt.


I don't know about you but one of my favorite times to smoke is after a nice big dinner. It would be a shame to have to try and find a place to smoke when your appetite is well sated. I much prefer sitting where I am and having an after-dinner drink and a cigar. :2


----------



## ActionAndy (Jul 9, 2008)

Oh I definitely agree on restaurants, I do not want to smell cigarettes while I'm eating. I hated bars before the smoking ban as well. I live in a place where at times the tourists pack in so tight that you have trouble turning your shoulders in a bar--combine that with people chain smoking, and it's pretty miserable. However I also think it's completely up to that individual business.


----------



## gary106334 (Sep 28, 2006)

mosesbotbol said:


> *Should Cities Ban Smoking in Public Places? *
> 
> You're asking the wrong crowd _that_ question!


:tpd::tpd::tpd:



ActionAndy said:


> Oh I definitely agree on restaurants, I do not want to smell cigarettes while I'm eating. I hated bars before the smoking ban as well. I live in a place where at times the tourists pack in so tight that you have trouble turning your shoulders in a bar--combine that with people chain smoking, and it's pretty miserable. However I also think it's completely up to that individual business.


Must be nice to be young.................can't remeber.


----------



## Scud (Sep 9, 2007)

The Dems care more about pot smokers and heroin addicts than they do about cigar smokers. Look at the amount of publicly funded methadone clinics compared to the number of cigar bars in big cities. Kinda sad, huh


----------



## Smoke&Ash (Sep 25, 2008)

I think this should be left up to the establishment to approve or disapprove of smoking. Unfortunately, this country in some ways is not as free as we'd all like it to be. The problem is we like to legislate everything and sometimes we give up freedoms in doing so. Anyways, for restaurants I think we should have some that cater to the smoking crowd, but it's nice for families etc... to have non-smoking sections. Overall I'm against Cities making that broad sweeping ban in all public places. That seems ridiculous!


----------

